Thursday, December 20, 2012

It goes without saying that the mass media lies - they lied about Iraq in the lead up to a war that in total, killed over 2 million people. They lied about Libya, they are lying about Syria. They lie about vaccines and intentionally try to sell parents the idea of purposefully injecting their children with mercury. Their lies have a single purpose - to serve the special interests that hand them their talking points.

Now the mass media is lying about gun violence. The New York Times wrote a particularly outrageous piece titled "In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness," where a "medical doctor" is given space to willfully bend statistics to make the case for banning guns, period.

Unfortunately for this "medical doctor" who claims that the vast majority of the mentally ill do not commit violent acts, the last several mass shootings in the US were committed by mentally ill individuals, all confirmed to be on psychotropic medication. Shooter Adam Lanza was said by relatives to be on Fanapt (Iloperidone) - an anti-psychotic prescribed for people suffering from schizophrenia.

...a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual thinking, loss of interest in life, and strong or inappropriate emotions). Iloperidone is in a class of medications called atypical antipsychotics. It works by changing the activity of certain natural substances in the brain.

Clearly a suicidal mass killer who targets little children is a mentally unhinged individual who has "lost interest in life" and was directed by "strong or inappropriate emotions."

Video: Michael Moore asks a legitimate question - one the mass media is currently attempting to sweep under the rug - the role of psychotropic prescription medication in violent mass killings. Moore asks finally, why pharmaceutical corporations are allowed to continue on when their products knowingly harm people - the complicit mass media and the role it plays in shaping and misdirecting public perception is a partial answer.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in America - millions of Americans responsibly own and use firearms every day. The common denominator amongst mass killers is not "guns," but clearly mental illness, coupled with the "shock and awe" indoctrination our own government sells America to promote its atrocities overseas. The New York Times piece bends statistics to explain that most mentally ill people aren't usually violent. And while that may or may not be true, the fact is those who on rare occasion have committed these tragedies were all mentally ill and taking medication. At the end of the NYT's unqualified rant, the author suggests:

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

Unfortunately for the New York Times, "deadly force" is not a synonym for guns - deadly force can mean knives - as in the knives used instead of guns in mass killings in China - where the mentally ill, left untreated and to their own devices simply pick easier targets before going on rampages that leave dozens maimed, and in some cases up to 10 dead at a time. Deadly force can mean box cutters - as in the box cutters allegedly used to hijack planes on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent people in a single day - not one shot fired.

Violence is driven by socioeconomic disparity, an inadequate healthcare system, and mentally ill people who are not given the help they need to be kept from hurting themselves and others. Mandating that a population disarm not only doesn't guarantee that people will hand in their guns (i.e. Mexico) but it also does nothing to stem violence. Disarming a population does however, keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the sort of people you would want to control such weapons, and leaves guns in the hands of criminals and the government exclusively. In Mexico, this leaves an unarmed population to be fed off of by both heavily armed criminal gangs, and a heavily armed, corrupt government able to operate with absolute impunity.

The US government is likewise corrupt - and ever-seeking to expand the impunity within which it operates.

Draw the Line.

Americans will not give up their guns - they will not give up assault weapons. Law abiding citizens should not pay for the crimes of the mentally ill or the socioeconomically motivated, in a society that willfully neglects them, then exploits the tragedies this creates, merely for political gain. The exploitation of the Connecticut shooting is grotesque - with journalists waiting like vultures to capture images of grieving families to splash across the covers of their publications.

Gun owners need to move beyond simply picking "representatives" ("pro-gun" Congressmen, NRA, etc.) to defend their rights on Capitol Hill. They need to organize locally to promote and preserve their rights. A government that knows 200-500 armed citizens per county are highly organized, politically active, and pragmatically prepared to defend their rights is a government that will seek profit and power elsewhere. Who is going to "confiscate" a community's weapons if everyone in the community, including law enforcement, refuses to allow the line to be crossed?

Shooting clubs built around this idea locally, should be organized. Gun safety classes taught by police or military instructors should be made available for members and non-members alike - and responsible gun ownership within an apolitical atmosphere promoted to provide an example of what an informed, responsible, armed citizenry looks like in the 21st century. Infowars' short lived "Brothers in Arms" was a prototype of such an organization - a prototype that should be revisited, or that others should pick up and run with.

Improving the image of responsible gun owners, versus the knuckle-dragging image they are given by the mass media - is essential. To not only put together a local organization that puts an informed, intelligent, apolitical/pragmatic face on gun ownership, but to compel other gun owners to follow suit, is the best defense in a war against our rights waged on a battlefield where much of the public is easily manipulated and emotionally compromised.

Walking away from the "left/right" paradigm is equally important - "right" leaning individuals need to realize that big-business corporate fascism demands public disarmament to give it the space to grow domestically as its right-wing backed military machine mass murders overseas. The left must realize that the very big-business interests they point their fingers at are the architects behind most, if not all of their talking points - not only on gun control, but on everything from "climate change" to "human rights" overseas as a new casus belli for perpetual global war.

While building a stronger sense of community and working with a local sheriff that actually represents the people, we should be policing our own so the federal government doesn't have an opportunity to propose doing it for us. Medicated individuals who are brought to firing ranges should be red flags - and families like this that show gross poor judgement should be addressed by the local community. A shooting range is a business that has the right to establish strict rules to promote best practices and responsibility.

We either draw the line, and take upon ourselves the responsibility of gun ownership, or the creep to strip our rights from us will insidiously continue, exploiting the blood of the innocent and the broken minds of the mentally ill. Collective punishment is our future if we do not create a viable local deterrence, across the nation to usurpers who seek greater impunity amongst an unarmed citizenry.

Tell the powers that be - "you're not getting the guns, period" and have the organizational capacity to back it up.

39 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Tony, this article smells like controlled opposition. Others who I have shown the article have said the same.If you don't fix the following areas, or if you censor this comment then I'll know it is. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here are the issues.

1) You use the brady campaign's own language of 'assault weapons' without actually putting the phrase in quotes. Assault Weapon isn't even a category of firearms; In addition it is a term the media has conditioned the public to respond to with various emotions such as anger, sadness, and indignation, associated with collective imagery of terrorism, dead children, and other horrors; It is a made up phrase used to direct readers to believe the primary purpose of a weapon is not defense but...assault. It is also used now to lump ALL guns under the same banner, which many gun-owners predicted, but the brady campaign vehemently denied. Does one trust a crocodile when it says "no I will not eat you"?

2) You say gun laws are ineffective, and instead of giving an example here, closer to home, like Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York City, you cite Mexico. You ignore the fact that common events often cited as reasons for gun control such as Aurora, the temple shooting, sandy hook, 9/11, have a hundreds of thousands (or in the case of the last example) millions of supporters. Tens of thousands of professionals out of these millions are experts in their fields. These experts believe with just cause, that these mass killings were known beforehand and allowed to happen by their own government at the very least, or at worst committed BY their own government. Gun laws ARE ineffective, as are laws against murder and terrorism apparently if their is the possibility that the american government is covertly massacring it's citizens.

3) You cite Michael Moore as if he is to be trusted, listened to, or respected. It was made clear that he is controlled opposition when he called for complete confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens after the most recent tradegy. This is not to disparage his other works. He made a valid point about antidepressants causing mass shootings.

4) The suggestion about organizing also came with the clear, if implicit, assumption that firearm owner's lack of responsibility is to blame for mass shootings. This is a red herring, and essentially the very argument made *against* public gun ownership. Society is not responsible for the actions of an individual. Each of us is the author of our choices where we are clear headed and within our senses. If anyone, and I mean, ANYONE is to blame it is the corporate media colluding with the medical industrial complex to cover up what ought to be the true public perception of antidepressants - that these hard drugs cause people to go into psychotic murderous rages, and the corporations are profiting from this while blaming the rights of law-abiding citizens.

5) The call for "Community" policing, and "addressing" problem individuals by local government is chilling to the bone. While I have no doubt for the most part this would be exercised correctly...when you combine this with your call to "Take care" of the mentally ill, it seems like a recipe for federal legislation and funding. The sort of legislation that leads to indefinite medical detention "for your own good", or "Department of Children and Families" kidnapping children "for the children!" to get federal monies for their county, and pawning the kids off on pedophiles or drug addicts.

You make some otherwise accurate, and insightful strategic recommendations. Tidy up your article. Right now its okay, but it could be good or even great.

I have a feeling that many in law enforcement and military will not break their oath to protect the Constitution or risk their lives trying to collect over 300 million guns from law abiding American citizens.Also, the law abiding American citizens, when confronted with the theft of their property(guns) and the trampeling of their Constitutional rights, may choose to use their weapons, not against those lackeys sent to collect them, but upon the politicians who sent them.

As long as "our" politicians think they have the right to "revisit" the 2nd Amendment, they might decide they have the right to "revisit" some OTHER Amendments. The Politicians have decided they can "reintroduce" TORTURE, so they might as well "revisit" the 13th Amendment and reintroduce SLAVERY. The Republicans did not like all those Female votes gong to Obama, maybe they will "revisit" the 19th Amendment and END Women's Sufferage(voting).I believe "our" Politicians should just keep their hands off OUR Constitution.

The anti-freedom (i.e. anti-gun) forces are doing all they can right now to make it seem they have the upper hand. They are a small number and America is a large country with a lot of opposition to their agenda and they know that. If they actually had the power to prevail, they already would have, just after the O-man was "selected" the first time with a majority Demoncrat controlled CONgress. They didn't dare try, and they are playing with fire much more this time around.

An "Assault Weapon" is one legally defined as a firearm which fires more than one round with one press of the trigger (One of the definitions). None of the weapons sold to the public are Assault Weapons. Please get this straight on the news and elsewhere where the reporters are ignorant of the guns they want banned.

Why doesn't everyone just throw out their TV and stop imbibing mainstream media or mainstream entertainment of any kind. Learn about guns and how to protect yourself and just go forward in your life with intelligence about this matter.

We have no idea what went down in Connecticut. Just like we had no idea on 9-11-01 what really happened and we still do not know to this day.

The alternative media will have to collect the real questions and real answers about that event and the alternative media was infiltrated for 9-11 truth and it will likewise be infiltrated for seeking truth about this event.

Do not "dialogue" about "gun control" at all! That is a piece of strychnine meat being thrown at us. Go forward seeking truth and wisdom.

Every time this comes up, every massacre, there's a surge in gun sales. Did anyone stop to think for a minute that the powers-that-be already KNOW this will happen, and that there's no faster way for them to arm a populace? What is on the horizon that those, in what they perceive is control, feel the need to get as many guns as possible into as many hands as possible? And quickly? Seems to me there's another chunk of the populace buying guns every time something like this happens. The MSM also seems to be using reverse psychology. When we're told something is going to be taken away, there are many of us who will run right out to get our share while we can.

Two days before the murders in Newtown, Obama's press secretary was asked about women and children being killed by drones in Yemen and Pakistan. He refused to answer, on the grounds that such matters are "classified". Instead, he directed the journalist to a speech by John Brennan, Obama's counter-terrorism assistant. Brennan insists that "al-Qaida's killing of innocents, mostly Muslim men, women and children, has badly tarnished its appeal and image in the eyes of Muslims".

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

I worked (until recently) in the mental health field as an administrator at a level 4-i adult residential facility, licensed in northern California-- an area known for a predominantly "conservative" population. The folks overseeing the developmentally disabled population I helped to take care of was anything but "conservative".

We saw plenty of psychotropic drugs and I was certified to administer them. One of the things I found most disturbing about this field of work, came during my orientation-- right at the beginning, where we discussed the "rights" of the disabled and mentally ill under Title 22, Title 17 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The bottom line was, if these clients wanted to possess firearms and participate in gun-related activities, there was no prohibition against their doing so- save for a medical waiver barring same.

One of the behavioral patterns I witnessed most often with these clients was, that as individuals who came from troubled home environments, the clients often manifest "attention-seeking" behavior. And if they wanted attention badly enough, they would do some pretty horrendous things, like pitching a bolder through a neighbor's front window, or running out onto the front lawn of the residence, tearing all their clothes off and screaming "RAPE!!!" Yeah-really.

In one incident, a 6 foot, 275 pound female client while on an outing, lagged behind the others, found a rusty steak knife laying in a sidewalk planter, grabbed it, and when her staff momentarily looked away, walked right into the reception area of a lawyer's office, walked right up to the secretary, put the knife to her throat with a malevolent smile and said: "Guess what? I'm going to kill you!" Needless to say she was hauled off and arrested under the 5150 "danger to self or others" statute and later released within 24 hours. She got a real thrill out of all the attention.

Having had these experiences, my advocacy would be to prohibit any gun ownership or possession by the mentally ill or developmentally disabled-- especially those on psychotropic meds. They are clearly a danger to society.

" Deadly force can mean box cutters - as in the box cutters allegedly used to hijack planes on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent people in a single day - not one shot fired."

I agree with most of what Tony writes here, but the above quote was a poor example to use: box cutters are not what allowed 911 to happen, and we don't even know for sure that box cutters were used at all. Mr. Cartalucci likely know that, and was only (mis)using that statement to help make his point. Meds KILL and should be banned. Augsberger's Syndrome and Autism are caused by vaccines, and then they give them drugs to treat the vaccine caused diseases, which makes things worse. The so-called "Spanish Flu" was caused by vaccines, and was the biggest mass killing in history.

Also, for the person who used the Sun Tzu quote, you are absolutely spot on. Regarding the second amendment issue in the U.S., TPTB are WEAK and are clearly intellectually dishonest as well as egregiously hypocritical.

Never forget the half a million Iraqi who needlessly died as a result of U.S. sanctions on basic food and medicine. And never forget Madeliene Albright's frank response to Leslie Stahl on 60 minutes that the price of the sanctions (500,000 dead children) was "worth it".

Tony. Your name is always one that sticks out to me here on this site. It is such a site that many people are free to exercise their beliefs as defined under the protection aforded from the 1st amendment.

I wish to offer this concept to you.. Guns and ammo are flying off the shelf. As Obama took office and more so now, as potential gun bans are being introduced.

These are not the actions of people interested in wasting their "money" in some vein attempt to buy out what will soon be unavailible.

No logic supports buying up what you will soon be forced to turn in, unless, you will not be turning in.

People vote with their dollar, and the people are voting. When the government is stumped as to how their sadly pathetic plan to curb the violence they create, know that people are not buying everthing up, just to turn it back in.

I have a friend who is young, dumb, and full of cum and he is braizen about his rights and even he said, that he would turn his gun in if it meant there where no guns anywhere every, until then, fat fucking chance!

Walking away from the "left/right" paradigm is equally important - "right" leaning individuals need to realize that big-business corporate fascism demands public disarmament to give it the space to grow domestically as its right-wing backed military machine mass murders overseas. The left must realize that the very big-business interests they point their fingers at are the architects behind most, if not all of their talking points - not only on gun control, but on everything from "climate change" to "human rights" overseas as a new casus belli for perpetual global war.

That's fucking brilliant! I have always wanted to be exceptional, but I am not, I hope that does not dismiss me from seeing brillance..

Prohibit and ban, prohibit and ban, I only hope I am among them that get to prohibit an ban. Hello crazy, my name is George. I am a property of your's.. I agree with all facsimile that come from you as to be true! Where would I be if it were not for you?! I know not the, I know not now, I only know sacred is the cow. I follow, I follow and I am not lead a stray, all I know is how to obey. Without you to lead I wither and die and whitout you to lead I give insult and hide. Help me now that all is a ryhe, with out you I will wither and die.

I love how this guy tony just goes right along with the idea that this poor kid did the shooting.not even a question as to the validity of it.no mention of any other suspects or eye witness account of people running from the school.

Controlled opposition someone above said yes right on the money yes lets make the conversation about guns and prescription drugs and mental health lets not dare talk about the highly organized package of goods we are being sold by the media and politicos about another "lone Gunman" please people put down the remote

and to the post that stated the military will not break their oath may i suggest you brush up on American history. A good place to start is with the "Bonus Army" check out what Eisenhower and Patton did to their fellow soldiers and countrymen. then there's the Whiskey rebellion, Kent and Jackson State college massacres.also please read the oath the military take you will find they give there total loyalty to the Commander and Chief.

First anonymous: you make several false statements.1) Michael moore did not call for confiscation of weapons but called for strict gun laws:

" "The way to honor these dead children is to demand strict gun control, free mental health care, and an end to violence as public policy."

Strict gun control is not confiscation but reasonable rules for ownership. The tweet that he published was among 40 tweets by many people which expressed the opinions of the tweeters.

If I quote, say, Hitler attacking the liberals as enemies of the people, does that mean I agree with him. If I publish something, does that mean I agree with it? Or does it just say: here's a whole range of opinions from over a dozen people on this issue? MM is a gun owner. He wants strict gun laws, which in all other peer nations (34) reduce gun homicides by 90-99% and overall murder rates by 80%. Strict gun laws explicitly demonstrate the private ownership of legal guns.

If there were no guns, why would we need strict regulation? This article has many other dishonesties, but as for me, if you lie to me, try to put words in someone's mouth, I assume you are full of it and stop reading.

A nation with many guns (1 for each 3 citizens) which also has 90% fewer gun deaths (and 80% fewer murders overall) and zero police killings (they only discharged 35 bullets all of last year!)is Germany. It has about 200 murders last year, most with guns. That is over 90% fewer, per capita than in the US; most countries have far fewer guns, relatively rare (but legal) in the UK and Japan, where even the criminals rarely shoot and gun homicides are 99% lower than in the US. This is a no-brainer for those with brains.

The difference is strict gun laws, strictly enforced. 25 million private guns among 50 million Germans adult with strict gun laws (no assault type weapons, screening, and training, and registration (if it's dangerous for the govt to know who has guns, it is much more dangerous if they don't know who has guns. Cars are registered. It doesn't mean they will confiscate it.

Tony C has been a hero to me for his reporting on Thailand and Syria, but in this article, he becomes just another brainwashed fool. Sad.

This article will draw many semi-unhinged types, present company excluded. Behind the gun: fear.Dale

"Every time this comes up, every massacre, there's a surge in gun sales. Did anyone stop to think for a minute that the powers-that-be already KNOW this will happen, and that there's no faster way for them to arm a populace? What is on the horizon that those, in what they perceive is control, feel the need to get as many guns as possible into as many hands as possible? And quickly? Seems to me there's another chunk of the populace buying guns every time something like this happens. The MSM also seems to be using reverse psychology. When we're told something is going to be taken away, there are many of us who will run right out to get our share while we can." - Anon 5:17pm

Some believe the agenda is to trigger a new Civil War in this country, which would pretty much tear what's left of it to shreds. U.N. peace keepers would then be sent in to stop the violence, effectively putting the nation under U.N. control.

If this is the true agenda, then the government saying it will ban guns is meant to increase gun sales and weapon procurement by the general population, in order to ensure maximum carnage when the federal goons start attempting to confiscate weapons.

The first U.S. citizen that shoots a federal agent attempting to seize his/her firearm will be the catalyst.

I interpreted Tony's use of that myth differently. I took it as a sarcastic dig at the idiots who actually cooked-up the guff they believed the public would swallow.

Of course, many initially did believe (did swallow). But all those possessing "half a brain" or more than that, have since coughed up all that "guff" and have spat it out. Furthermore, we no longer swallow anything that is being served to us.

Actually, when you think about it, the 9/11 myth about 19 Arabs with boxcutters ("Stanley Knives" in Brit lingo) can be turned around and used against the NWO faggots who keep getting published in the NY Times, Washington Post, London Times, et al.

Just repeat what Tony implied in so many words ...

"Hey ... according to all you globalist faggot types, 19 Arabs armed with box cutters (but no direct radio communications) took almost simultaneous possession of 4 aircraft in flight, before flying two into the WTC Towers and one into the Pentagon."

Then continue ...

"Almost 3,000 people were killed, and a large piece of Manhattan destroyed ... and a wing of America's Military headquarters also destroyed ... YET NOT A SINGLE BULLET WAS FIRED!! What gives? Explain for us, how your hypocrisy became so confused and so contradictory. And how did you get that job ... by being sufficiently stupid?"

By turning the Globalist/NWO arguments around, the current hysterical demand for an expansion of the current gun control laws is immediately made to fall flat on its silly face, and with little effort from us.

Ultimately, the Globalist/NWO crowd is made up of talentless nobodies. Take away their fawning media presstitutes, and what are they? Just perverts, brown-nosers, incompetents, and psychopaths!

The was a book recently published showing that at least 90% of mass shooters were on one or more antidepressant or psychotropic drugs or being weaned off them. These drugs are handed out like candy on the OPINION of an MD [not always a shrink though this will guarantee you multiple drugs]. By this I mean that there are few if any PHYSICAL tests [blood, urine, spit,feces,hair] to confirm at least 50 conditions that can cause depression or "mental illness". It has been found that many schitzophrenics are niacin deficient to the point of pelegra. Many of the crazies in the mental hospitals of old were mad hatters full of mercury from the mines or the felt industry. Chelation cured them. The new 2013 Psyche guidebook to disorders define EVERY emotion as a potential disorder with a medication to match. Most of these meds are FLUORINATED and are known to cause confusion,suicidal & homicidal thoughts[among other side effects].I know I have been there, don't listen to docs anymore. They also cause severe birth defects [see prozac,paxil,zoloft lawsuits]. Combine this with 4generations of Mercury poisoning from amalgams, vaccines,coal plants,fish, and HFCS and you have a perfect storm.For a list of 360 fluorinated drugs to avoid go to www.slweb.org and click on FTRC link.The effects are synergistic & cumulative.Also go to www.cdc.gov & read 2012 Vaccine Media & Excipients before you pump your family full of pig,cow,monkey,chicken,dog,insect,and aborted fetal cells. Also mercury, aluminum,formaldehyde,MSG, antibiotics,detergents,potassium chloride and polysorbate 80 which causes inflammation & sterylization in lab animals. Criminals don't care about regulations, but an unarmed populace has no defense against intruders or gov't. Never give your families' protection or your health decisions to another.

The deal is if someone calls the FBI and says F you and you will not take my guns if you try to I'll kill you all. They send the agents to his house. ALl these people have to watch how they say it. I mean they'll say tell them to screw them they aren't getting the guns. But if they tell the FBI to kill the agents if they come and then they will go to that person and they will arrest them and nobody will help them. We know all the attacks like Ruby Ridge and Waco the FBI started it like it's worth all that time and trouble to go harass someone who just wanted to be left alone. Some people went there, but you weren't getting within 500 foot of that place and after the smoked cleared everyone just forget and went home. Now when the FBI comes to take your guns it will be you and them. Maybe your family will help and if you have a friend that comes to your aid you will know you had a good friend. So it will be you against them. In fact if you did congregate in one town or one compound you can see what they did in Waco. So as a mob you will won't be able to support each other and maybe that would play into their favor anyway. I think the smart people if they didn't have to live here and are retired or they can just work in other countries, then they better had give that a lot of thought. This country like Eastern Europe, Germany and The Middle East the Jews always make things unstable and with that comes trouble. This country is nothing but a warmonering country and a police state and the sheeple thought it was fine as long as we attacked other countries, but now the chickens have come home to roost.

The problem is we have been screwed as a country starting with the Revolutionary War. But the people armed themselves and took care of business. We had the federal reserve created and right after that we got WWI. So with the wars, drugs, and the brainwashing in our school and the media and we have harped about that for years. Nothing has slowed them up of what they wanted to do. Now most of us probably know there is nothing we can do to defeat them. I mean sure we can write all we want. We can even sneak up on the police and shoot some. We could go to the Monsanto facilities that are making this GM food and destroy them, but we want to win, and we know if we don't win we might be sitting in FEMA camps a few motnhs down the road. So if that occurs, then we lost big time. Will it matter they write the history books that we tried to fight them? I think no. So we better go into this thinking we can win. We better have a plan and if the plan is to allow the government to get their plan together for a few more years and then martial law. That is a bad plan considering we should have already marched on Washington right after Waco.So waiting is no plan. I think some people actually think we can win. Sure if every American says you can not have our guns and if you come to take them you will have 80 million guns owners shooting you. OF course, if we worked together and told them erase the deficit or we won't go back to work. We could say get out of the Middle East and bring all the troops home or we will not go back to work. We oculd say get rid of the drugs in this country and if we stood together we could get them to do what we want, but we won't do it. People who have to work won't have time to fool with a revolution. Old people won't want to and the very young. I think people would be better off if they decided we can not beat the police, military and U.N. soldiers and then people would decide maybe we

The common denominator in these shootings is not "mental illness" as such, but rather the use of these so-called "anti-psychotic" drugs. Messing around chemically with the workings of someone else's brain can never be morally justified, in my opinion. For one thing, we simply don't know enough about the details of how the brain works to be confident that doing so will not cause more problems than it solves, as these shootings graphically illustrate. Frankly, I hope we never do. But even if we did, it still wouldn't be right. The human mind should be treated as a "black box", in my opinion: you look at the inputs and the outputs, but you don't mess with the inner workings. That should be regarded as sacred and inviolable.

Anyway, the tendency to label ever-increasing aspects of human character as "mental disorders" is part of the problem, not the solution. I have seen people on conservative websites call liberalism a "mental disorder", and I have seen people on liberal sites say the same about conservatism. When I first saw these comments, I figured the posters were being somewhat facetious, but now I think some of them are serious, and actually think they are speaking literally. Both are horridly wrong, of course. We need to accept that people who think differently than we do can have legitimate beliefs and opinions that need to be given recognition as worthy of being respected. If we don't, if we think that anyone whose opinion differs significantly from ours must be suffering a "mental disorder", then society becomes coarsened as the general level of people's respect for each other plummets. That way lies disaster.

American's are losing confidence in the current system at an alarming rate. The powers that be should not be encouraging us to buy firearms at this point, as this will place many of the 1% in direct danger of being killed. This is outside of any UN 'assistance' that would come later.

There are so many layers to the manipulation efforts being run against us.The left right divide is the focal point of this mess, and all rational moderate views are ignored or shouted down to a drumbeat suitable to our fascist rulers.

These mass shootings are black ops in most cases. The canards of prescription drugs, media, crazy people, loners, gun laws are all classic wedge issues served up to get people fighting each other.

In this case there is probably more evidence to suggest black ops than in any other big event (save 911). The 'news sites' mindlessly promoting a big fight over gun rights while ignoring the obvious evidence of black ops, show themselves to be............what?

Please read www.fredoneverything.net "When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music—which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.

So with guns. They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so."Fred Reed

Anon above said," I have a friend who is young, dumb, and full of cum and he is braizen about his rights and even he said, that he would turn his gun in if it meant there where no guns anywhere every, until then, fat fucking chance!"

Even if there were no other guns in the world I would not turn mine in. The world before the invention of firearms was hardly a peaceful place. The weak were totally at the mercy of the stronger. The firearm is the great equalizer, it allows your 80 year old mother to defend herself against the 20 year old thug. Firearms are one of, if not the, most liberating invention in human history.

9/11 Questions

Activist Post is an Independent News blog for Activists challenging the abuses of the establishment.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Paid advertising on Activist Post may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.

All opinions expressed by contributors to this site are theirs and theirs alone.